Loyalty, Lordship, and Law

Speaking of reading, has anyone read "Richard III:
Loyalty, Lordship, and Law," ed. by P.W. Hammond?

There are some intriguing articles in there.

Michael Jones has an article about Margaret Beaufort
which gives information from John Stowe's chronicle
that Jones didn't use in "The King's Mother." It's
the longest description of the late July effort to
release the princes from Tower that I've seen yet.
It's almost a paragraph long, describing a plan to set
fires around London to distract everyone while the
conspirators released Edward V and Richard of York
from the Tower. Most references I've seen to that
plan are only a couple of sentences long. I'd like to
know why Jones left it out of "The King's Mother."

Another article compares James III of Scotland to
Richard III. They had more in common than the "III"
after their names. <g>

Another one discusses the validity of using Edward
IV's precontract(s) to disqualify Edward V as king.

All of the articles are thought-provolking, but those
three have impressed me the most.

Does anyone have comments about "Loyalty, Lordship,
and Law?"

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Speaking of reading, has anyone read "Richard III:
> Loyalty, Lordship, and Law," ed. by P.W. Hammond?
>
> There are some intriguing articles in there.
>
> Michael Jones has an article about Margaret Beaufort
> which gives information from John Stowe's chronicle
> that Jones didn't use in "The King's Mother." It's
> the longest description of the late July effort to
> release the princes from Tower that I've seen yet.
> It's almost a paragraph long, describing a plan to set
> fires around London to distract everyone while the
> conspirators released Edward V and Richard of York
> from the Tower. Most references I've seen to that
> plan are only a couple of sentences long. I'd like to
> know why Jones left it out of "The King's Mother."
>
> Another article compares James III of Scotland to
> Richard III. They had more in common than the "III"
> after their names. <g>
>
> Another one discusses the validity of using Edward
> IV's precontract(s) to disqualify Edward V as king.
>
> All of the articles are thought-provolking, but those
> three have impressed me the most.
>
> Does anyone have comments about "Loyalty, Lordship,
> and Law?"
>
> Marion
>
> Yes. Most of it is excellent, particularly the pre-contract.
MacDougall is a little hostile if thought-provoking but Richmond?
Another Tudor groupie, I'm afraid.

Stephen
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Speaking of reading, has anyone read "Richard III:
> Loyalty, Lordship, and Law," ed. by P.W. Hammond?
>
> There are some intriguing articles in there.
>
> Michael Jones has an article about Margaret Beaufort
> which gives information from John Stowe's chronicle
> that Jones didn't use in "The King's Mother." It's
> the longest description of the late July effort to
> release the princes from Tower that I've seen yet.
> It's almost a paragraph long, describing a plan to set
> fires around London to distract everyone while the
> conspirators released Edward V and Richard of York
> from the Tower. Most references I've seen to that
> plan are only a couple of sentences long. I'd like to
> know why Jones left it out of "The King's Mother."
>
> Another article compares James III of Scotland to
> Richard III. They had more in common than the "III"
> after their names. <g>
>
> Another one discusses the validity of using Edward
> IV's precontract(s) to disqualify Edward V as king.
>
> All of the articles are thought-provolking, but those
> three have impressed me the most.
>
> Does anyone have comments about "Loyalty, Lordship,
> and Law?"
>
> Marion

Were these essays originally published in the Ricardian? I had the
idea they were, which is why I haven't bought it. If so, does it say
which issues the articles were in. If not, it sounds as though I
ought to start saving up.

Marie>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Stephen wrote: > Yes. Most of it is excellent,
particularly the pre-contract. MacDougall is a little
hostile if thought-provoking but Richmond?
Another Tudor groupie, I'm afraid.

***

Was Colin Richmond included to balance the ticket?

His article didn't impress me as much as the earlier
ones. But I'm willing to read what a Tudor groupie
has to say, unless s/he goes overboard with
expressions like "no doubt" and "wierd cult of ..."
I don't have time for much of that.

I still haven't finished Weir's "Princes in the
Tower." <g>

Marion






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Hello Marie!

You asked: Were these essays originally published in
the Ricardian?

***

The introduction says the papers were presented at a
symposium marking the 500th anniversary of Richard's
reign. The theme was: "The present view of Richard
and his times." The only mention of "The Ricardian"
is a footnote to one of Anne Sutton's papers, which
appears in the introduction. But Anne Sutton's paper
in the body of "Loyalty, Lordship, and Law" is a
different paper.

***

I had the idea they were, which is why I haven't
bought it. If so, does it say which issues the
articles were in.

***

It doesn't say that any of the articles ever appeared
in "The Ricardian." Just that footnote in the
introduction to a different paper by Anne Sutton.
*But* I remember being disappointed that the partial
collection of Ricardians in my library didn't include
an article I wanted on the legal arguments for
declaring Edward V ineligible for the throne. I can't
remember if that Ricardian article was the same as the
one published in "Loyalty, Lordship, and Law."

***

If not, it sounds as though I ought to start saving up

***

Here's a list of titles and authors from "Loyalty,
Lordship, and Law." If you can compare them to an
index of Ricardian articles, you can make sure you're
not buying duplicates. I'm reading the RIII Society,
American Branch Library's copy. If you could borrow a
copy, you could be sure you're not duplicating
anything you already own.

1. The Private Life of John Howard: A Study of a
Yorkist Lord, his Family and Household, by Anne
Crawford.

2. Richard III and Lady Margaret Beaufort: A
Re-assessment, by Michael Jones.

3. Richard III and the Yorkshire Gentry, by Keith
Dockray.

4. A Curious Searcher for our Weal Public: Richard
III, Piety, Chivalry and the Concept of the Good
Prince, by Anne F. Sutton.

5. The Sons of Edward IV: A Canonical Assessment of
the Claim that They Were Illegitimate, by R.H.
Helmholz.

6. The Sons of Edward IV; a Re-examination of the
Evidence on their Deaths and on the Bones in
Westminster Abbey, by P.W. Hammond and W.J. White.

7. Richard III and James III, Contemporary Monarchs,
Parallel Mythologies, by Norman Macdougall.

8. 1485 and All That, or what was going on at the
Battle of Bosworth? by Colin Richmond.

Hope this helps!

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail